- Former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has filed a judicial review application contesting her removal from the Supreme Court.
- She argues that President Mahama acted outside his constitutional powers by removing her without following Article 146 procedures.
- Torkornoo is seeking four key reliefs, including a declaration that the removal warrant is unlawful and should be quashed.
- Her removal followed petitions alleging misconduct and misuse of public funds, leading to a five-member investigative committee.
- The committee’s findings prompted President Mahama to issue a warrant removing her from both the Chief Justice role and the Supreme Court bench.
- Torkornoo’s case marks the first time a sitting Chief Justice has been dismissed in Ghana’s Fourth Republic.
- Legal experts warn the move could trigger a precedent-setting constitutional crisis.
In a dramatic legal twist, former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has taken her fight to the courts, challenging her removal from Ghana’s highest judicial office. On September 17, 2025, she filed a judicial review application, arguing that President John Dramani Mahama exceeded his constitutional authority when he signed a warrant removing her from both the Chief Justice post and the Supreme Court bench.
Torkornoo’s legal team is contesting the validity of the removal process, claiming it violated Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines distinct procedures for removing a Chief Justice versus a Justice of the Superior Courts. Her application seeks four key reliefs, including a declaration that the September 1 warrant is unlawful and must be nullified.
The controversy stems from petitions filed earlier this year by citizens including Daniel Ofori, alleging “stated misbehavior” and financial misconduct. These petitions led to her suspension in April and the formation of a five-member investigative committee chaired by Justice Gabriel Pwamang. The committee’s report confirmed grounds for removal, prompting the president’s action.
However, Torkornoo argues that the committee lacked jurisdiction to recommend her removal as a Supreme Court Justice, since it was constituted under provisions specific to the Chief Justice role. Her challenge raises constitutional questions about separation of powers, procedural integrity, and the limits of executive authority.
The case has already stirred debate among legal scholars and political observers, with warnings that it could set a dangerous precedent. If the court sides with Torkornoo, it could reshape how judicial accountability is handled in Ghana—and if it doesn’t, it may redefine the boundaries of presidential power over the judiciary.
Read the full suit below:
